land

Land 2014, 3, 260-281; doi:10.3390/land3010260
OPEN ACCESS
land
ISSN 2073-445X
www.mdpi.com/journal/land/
Essay
Preserving the Picturesque: Perceptions of Landscape,
Landscape Art, and Land Protection in the United States
and China
Aaron M. Ellison
Harvard Forest, Harvard University, 324 North Main Street, Petersham, MA 01366, USA;
E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-978-724-3302; Fax: +1-978-724-3595
Received: 24 December 2013; in revised form: 19 February 2014 / Accepted: 3 March 2014 /
Published: 13 March 2014
Abstract: The predominant environmental consciousness in both the United States and
China reflects an underlying sense of separation of people from nature. Likewise,
traditional landscape paintings in the United States and China share a common underlying
aesthetic—i.e., the “picturesque”. Together, these similarities appear to have led to the
preservation of similar types of landscapes in both countries. Because decisions regarding
landscape preservation and subsequent management of preserved areas in both countries
reflect aesthetic preferences more than they reflect economic values placed on ecosystem
services, contemporary artists have an opportunity to help shape future societal decisions
regarding what natural areas to conserve and protect.
Keywords: aesthetics; conservation; land protection; landscape art; picturesque; sublime
1. Introduction
“No work of art can be great, but as it deceives; to be otherwise is the prerogative of
nature only” [1] (p. 59).
Land and landscapes are “preserved”—protected from future development—for a wide variety of
reasons. Some reasons are utilitarian: the protected land may provide a specific service, such as a
source of clean water or merchantable timber, for which it is less costly to maintain the land in its
undeveloped state than it would be to (try to) recreate that service elsewhere [2–4]. Other reasons
derive from how the land or landscape reminds us of particular aspects of a regional or national culture
or particular events in history, e.g., cultural landscapes reflect long-term interactions between people
Land 2014, 3
261
and “nature”: non-anthropogenic structures, organisms, and processes [5,6]. Still others reflect
aesthetic or spiritual values. For example, in the United States (U.S.), the National Park Service
Organic Act established the National Park Service to manage, promote, and regulate National Parks
(including National Monuments and National Reservations) so as “to conserve the scenery and
the natural historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same
in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations” ([7,8], emphasis added). And sacred groves—stands of trees of religious importance—are
protected throughout the world (often, however, without formal legal status) and repeatedly have been
shown to harbor high levels of biological diversity [9,10].
The importance that an aesthetic appreciation of “picturesque” landscapes has had in determining
priorities for land protection in the United States cannot be underestimated [8,11]. During the
early development of landscape architecture in mid-19th century Europe and North America, the
“picturesque” was characterized by forms and arrangements that conveyed a sense of the sublime,
raw power of a capricious, uncaring natural world [12]. But within 30 years, the picturesque had been
reconceived as settled, graceful, soft, or luxuriant, as in the rolling, cultivated hills of northeastern
North America [13] or the settled and tamed British “countryside” [14]. Both of these competing
visions of the picturesque have been used to identify landscapes in need of protection and preservation.
Some studies have suggested that there is an evolved preference for a particular landscape
types—open savannahs or grasslands with few scattered trees [15–17] or thick boreal forests [18].
Additional covariates examined in the latter study further suggested that preferences for particular
habitats was not likely to be innate, and that preference for and perception of scenic beauty was not
specific to a given habitat or biome type [18]. I and others have asserted that contemporary aesthetic
preferences for particular landscape types is not innate, but derives from a constructed vision of
idealized landscapes developed by 19th century writers and artists that reflects a combination of
the sublime and the (later version of) the picturesque [19–22]. Similar aesthetic ideals underlie
international conservation efforts, including UNESCO’s Geoparks [23] and The Nature Conservancy’s
Last Great Places initiative [24]. This aesthetic is rarely challenged [22,25], but it is important to note
that it has evolved through time. Visitors to many U.S. National Parks, Biosphere Reserves, and
National Geoparks around the world today encounter an amalgamation of the Romantic Movement’s
picturesque refracted through designed landscapes informed by mid-20th century modernist
architecture [26] (Figure 1) or unobtrusive maintenance of historically-derived cultural landscapes [4].
In North America and Western Europe, the 19th century Romantic Movement’s picturesque
aesthetic, as exemplified by the Hudson River School painters [21], also presents a vision of “nature”
apart from people and outside of human influence [22]. Callicott et al. [27] identified this sense of
separation of humans from nature as the appropriate context for nature reserves and conservation of
biological diversity and biological integrity. Following from Callicott et al. [27], Jordan and Lubick
asserted that our sense of separation from nature also is a necessary prerequisite for ecosystem
restoration [28]. However, both this sense of separation from nature, and its importance for land
protection is contested [25].
Land 2014, 3
262
Figure 1. (top) The Observation Tower at Shark Valley, Everglades National Park.
(bottom) View from the Observation Tower at Shark Valley, Everglades National Park.
The tower was designed by Edward M. Ghezzi and was opened to visitors in 1966. It is
a classic example of the modernist constructions that were part of the Mission 66
agenda [26]. Photographs © 2014 by Aaron M. Ellison and Elizabeth J. Farnsworth, and
used with permission.
In particular, it is often asserted that the separation of humans from nature (compositionalism
sensu [27]) is tied to Judeo-Christian traditions, whereas inclusion of humans within nature
(functionalism sensu [27]) is part and parcel of Daoist and some Buddhist traditions [29]. Polinska [30]
and Scott [31], for example, argued that the nature aesthetic of East Asian painting follows these latter
traditions, and thus provide new, or at least complementary, approaches to environmental preservation.
Whereas Scott [31] emphasized that these ideas and approaches were unique to the particular
philosophers and literati painters themselves in the context and at the times they were painting,
Land 2014, 3
263
Ames [32] asserted that Taoism as a philosophical whole proceeds from art rather than science, and
provides a different (i.e., non-Western) basis for redefining the nature of nature inseparable from
people. In contrast, Elvin [33] suggested that our perception that that Daoist and Buddhist traditions
have driven environmental awareness in China misreads the historical record. Rather, the many Chinese
artists and poets who have expressed a functionalist interpretation in arguing for what we would now
view as a conservation aesthetic were reacting to a mainstream paradigm of human use and dominance
over nature deriving from a Confucian tradition [31,33–35]. Nonetheless, there is much that can be
learned from non-Confucian traditions to inform contemporary environmental awareness [30–32,35].
Elvin’s notion [36] that both “Western” (Judeo-Christian; at least in post-Medieval times) and
Chinese perceptions of nature share, at least in large measure, a general, compositionalist perspective
on the relationship between humans and nature [28] may be reflected in artistic portrayals of
“landscapes” [21–33,37]. Traditions of landscape paintings generally pre-date efforts to protect and
conserve the landscapes themselves; the protection of the Yellow Mountain (Huangshan: 黄山) in
Anhui Province by the Song Emperor Qinzong in 10th century China is a notable exception (discussed
further in Section 3.2, below) that further supports this assertion [38].
Drawing on examples from the United States and China, I argue that the two countries share a
common aesthetic conception of nature—which I refer to below as “picturesque” without
anachronistic intention—and that this cultural conditioning has led to the preservation of similar types
of landscapes in both countries. I conclude that decisions regarding landscape preservation and
subsequent management of preserved areas in both countries reflect an underlying sense of separation
of people from nature, and that contemporary artists have an opportunity to help shape future societal
decisions regarding what natural areas to conserve and how to protect them.
2. A Peopled Nature Leads to a Nature Apart from People
The idea of “nature”, and certainly a nature in need of protection, appears to have progressed
hand-in-hand with the shift from hunting and gathering to agrarian settlement and “civilization” [33,35,39].
Although there may yet exist a true “wilderness” in the sense of a self-willed place with its own
volition [40]—and contemporary sacred groves, which still are conceived of as abodes of deities,
animistic spirits, and other supernatural powers [41] may be all that remain of such true
wildernesses—what we now think of wilderness is more clearly conceived of as a human
construct [39]. In both the U.S. and China, as the frontier disappeared, there has grown a sense that
there was still a “natural” landscape somewhere else, and that if we could find it, we should protect it.
2.1. Nature as an Expression of the Sublime
Early expressions of “natural” landscapes can be found in paintings that illustrate the sublime [1]:
the “frisson of fear that comes from confronting something more powerful than oneself” [42] (p. 105)
as well as sensations of wonder, awe, or terror [43] (p. 109). A key attraction of wilderness is its sense
of wildness [39,40], and especially the possibility that we are not in complete control of nature or
secure in our place at the top of the food chain (but see [44]).
Western Romantic Movement landscape painting intentionally conveyed a sense of the sublime:
landscapes are active, with vast geological features, churning water, dramatic clouds or thunderheads,
Land 2014, 3
264
and continuous interplay of light and shadows over all of these features [45] (Figure 2). People, if
present at all in the paintings, are small.
Figure 2. The Chasm of the Colorado (1873–1874) by Thomas Moran. Oil on canvas,
213.4 × 365.8 cm; Smithsonian American Art Museum, Washington, DC; Lent by the
Department of the Interior Museum L.1968.84.2. This painting, which has many classical
elements of the sublime, was appropriately described as an “appalling chaos of cliffs and
chasms” [45] (p. 700).
Chinese visions of the sublime share a similar vocabulary [46]. As early as the 3rd century BCE, the
poet Song Yu (宋玉 Sung Yü in earlier literature) wrote in the Gaotang fu (高唐赋 Kao-t’ang fu in
earlier literature) (translation from [47]) (pp. 415–416):
The splendor of the Wu mountain is matchless,
Paths carve and pile, one on another.
Climb the cliffs and look down—
There the waters surge near the great slope.
After the rain, the sky clears—
Now see the assemblage of streams!
The roar of the rushing waters is deafening
As the torrents churn and race to their source.
…
Great waves overflow the banks.
Rushing, leaping, they strike at one another,
And rise like clouds in a clash of sound.
…
Land 2014, 3
265
Landscape painting in China emerged several centuries later: both Soper [46] and Lee [37] identify
early examples in the mid-5th century CE. These not only express concepts of the sublime, including
sheer mountain peaks, clouds, the “mystery of the Dark Spirit of the Universe” [46] (p. 164), and the
transience of life, but also “picturesque” scenes of landscapes and romance (Figure 3; [48]).
Figure 3. Nymph of the Luo River (detail) (5th century, but probably a Song Dynasty
(960–1279 CE) copy) attributed to Gu Kaizhi (顧愷之 Ku K’ai-chih in earlier translations).
From a hand-scroll in Beijing’s Palace Museum (image in the public domain) [48].
2.2. Taming the Sublime in the Picturesque
In North America, the “closing” of the western frontier in the 19th century was accompanied both
by a growing romanticizing of the frontier itself and by the recognition that the “wilderness” needed to
be protected from untrammeled exploitation. Indeed, one of the key arguments for the establishment
of Yellowstone National Park in California was that it should not suffer the same fate (i.e., of
commercialization) as Niagara Falls in New York [49] (Figure 4).
In many 19th century landscape paintings, both of the settled eastern part of the country and the
western “frontier”, there is ample evidence of civilization, including human settlement, activity, and
even resource extraction or landscape transformation. Examples include the (self-referential) painter
overlooking the agrarian landscape in Thomas Cole’s Oxbow [50] (Figure 5) and the railroad tracks
above Donner Lake in Albert Bierstadt’s Donner Lake from the Summit (Figure 6).
Both paintings are filled with irony. Cole’s Oxbow depicts a landscape that had been settled and
farmed for almost 200 years from a viewpoint that appears wild but was already a popular tourist
destination with a flourishing hotel (located just off-canvas to the left). It also portrays nature as he
wished to see it, not as it really was—the oxbow in the painting was nearly cut off from the main stem
Land 2014, 3
266
of the Connecticut River by the time he painted The Oxbow. Bierstadt painted the mountain pass in the
High Sierras that was the site of the loss, in the winter of 1846–1847, of more than half of
the Donner party, a group of pioneers from the eastern and Midwestern U.S. aiming to settle in
California [51]. It is also the point at which the emerging transcontinental railroad reached its
highest point crossing the Rocky Mountains. The juxtapositions in both The Oxbow and Donner Lake
simultaneously recall a sublime past and point towards a settled future in which nature can be viewed
and appreciated from a the balcony of a well-appointed hotel room or from the window of a railroad
dining car moving rapidly through the landscape (Figure 6).
Figure 4. Niagara Falls (1818) by Louisa Davis Minot. Oil on linen, 76.2 × 103.2 cm;
Gift of Mrs. Waldron Phoenix Belknap, Sr., to the Waldron Phoenix Belknap, Jr.,
Collection. Collection of the New-York Historical Society, Object 156.4. In the early 19th
century, Niagara Falls was considered the epitome of the overwhelming sublime, but the
tourists walking the rocks clad in fine suits or dresses indicates this landscape was already
tamed and accessible [21]. Image © The New-York Historical Society. Reproduction of
any kind is prohibited without express written permission in advance from The New-York
Historical Society.
Land 2014, 3
267
Figure 5. View from Mount Holyoke, Northampton, Massachusetts, after a
Thunderstorm—The Oxbow (1836), by Thomas Cole. Oil on canvas, 130.8 × 193 cm.
Gift of Mrs. Russell Sage; Collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. This painting
includes classical elements of the sublime on the left (twisted trees, a thunderstorm) and a
vision of the cultivated picturesque on the right [50]. Image © The Metropolitan Museum
of Art. Reproduction of any kind is prohibited without express written permission in
advance from The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Similarly, as China was settled and its landscape transformed from northeast to southwest
beginning at least 3000 years ago, increasing laments for lost plants, animals, and natural landscapes
increasingly appear in poetry [33]. At the beginning of the 9th century (CE), the poet Liu Zongyuan
( 柳 宗 元 Liu Tsung-yuan in earlier translations) summarized the growing swath of historical
deforestation in a political allegory ([52] translation in [33] (p. 19)):
The official guardians’ axes have spread through a thousand hills,
At the Works Department’s order hacking rafter-beams and billets.
Of ten trunks cut in the woodlands’ depths, only one gets hauled away.
Ox-teams strain at their traces—‘til the paired yoke-shafts break.
Great-girthed trees of towering height lie blocking the forest tracks,
A tumbled confusion of lumber, as flames on the hillside crackle.
Not even the last remaining shrubs are safeguarded from destruction;
Where once the mountain torrents leapt—nothing but rotted gullies.
Timbers, not yet seasoned or used, left immature to rot;
Proud summits and deep-sunk gorges now—brief hummocks of naked rock.
Land 2014, 3
268
Figure 6. Donner Lake from the Summit (1873), by Albert Bierstadt. Oil on canvas,
183.2 × 305.3 cm. Gift of Archer Milton Huntington; Collection of the New-York
Historical Society, Object 1909.16. As with Cole’s Oxbow, this painting includes many
classical elements of the sublime: twisted or shattered trees; a sparkling lake and clouds;
mountains; and a rising or setting sun. Note the covered railroad track as it traverses the
Donner Pass in the center right of the painting. Image © The New-York Historical Society.
Reproduction of any kind is prohibited without express written permission in advance from
The New-York Historical Society.
The mature landscape paintings of the Song (Figure 7) and Yuan Dynasties [53] illustrate this
vision in “deliberate opposition to the standards of civilized mankind” [46] (p. 164) (see also [33,35]).
A later landscape painter, Shi Tao (石涛 Shih T’ao in earlier translations; 1642–1707) referred to the
sublime elements of Ni Zan’s paintings (e.g., Figure 7): “Their air of supreme refinement and purity is
so cold that it overawes men.” [54] (p. 43).
Land 2014, 3
269
Figure 7. Detail of Water and Bamboo Dwelling (Yuan Dynasty era: 1271–1368) by
Ni Zan (倪瓒 Ni Tsan in earlier translations; 1301–1374). Hanging scroll, ink and color on
paper, 53.6 × 27.7 cm; Collection of the National Museum of China (image in the public
domain). Note the small scale of the dwelling (as in Hudson River School paintings) and
the deforested hills in the background.
3. Scenic Visions Guide Preservation
In the United States, the creation of National Parks beginning in the late 19th century and the
establishment in the early 20th century of a National Park Service to manage them coincided with the
closing of the western frontier. At that time, the western U.S., where the first National Parks were set
aside and where they still predominate today, already was being settled while natural areas were being
mined, deforested, and developed. But the temporal and spatial extents of these landscape changes
were very small compared to the millennia of landscape changes that had occurred in China long
before either a landscape aesthetic had developed or the idea of conservation and land protection had
emerged [33,35]. In the United States, an early 20th century inventory of preserved and preservable
areas in North America could easily identify and describe natural areas that could serve as reference
states for biological systems unaffected by people [55]. In contrast, although potential land-cover types
can be identified for China [56], it seems virtually impossible that there were areas of China
untransformed by people by the time the first Chinese nature reserve—Dinghushan (鼎湖山) National
Nature Reserve—was established in 1956. Nevertheless, similar motivations underpin land protection
efforts in both countries.
Land 2014, 3
270
3.1. Scenery as Landscape Architecture in the United States National Parks
As noted in the Introduction, the 1916 legislation (the Organic Act) establishing the U.S. National
Park Service emphasized the importance of conserving the scenery of the parks so that it could be
enjoyed by the general public. Although the Organic Act also required that the scenery (and wildlife)
be left “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations”, the management of the U.S. National
Parks has almost always prioritized scenery and the visitors’ experience over keeping them in an
unimpaired state [8,57]. This idea has its roots in landscape architecture. In discussing the management
of what eventually was to become Yosemite National Park, the landscape architect Frederick Law
Olmstead wrote in 1865:
“…(t)he enjoyment of scenery employs the mind without fatigue and yet exercises it;
tranquilizes it and yet enlivens it; and thus, through the influence of the mind over the
body, gives the effect of refreshing rest and reinvigoration to the whole system” [58].
Shortly after the National Park Service was established, the Secretary of the Interior, Franklin Lane,
in a letter to Stephen Mather, the first director of the Service, identified three broad principles to guide
the creation and management of National Parks: that the parks be maintained in absolutely unimpaired
form for future generations; that they are set apart for the pleasure of the people; and that the national
interest must dictate all decisions affecting public or private enterprise in the parks [59]. In spite of
the first principle (absolute unimpairment), cattle grazing was permitted, trees could be cut for
constructing buildings or “to improve the scenic features of the parks”; construction of roads, trails,
and buildings should be harmonized with the landscape and be done by “trained engineers who either
possess a knowledge of landscape architecture or have a proper appreciation of the esthetic value of
park lands”; automobiles were permitted in all parks, and railroads should be employed to allow the
public to comfortably reach the parks [59]. The suggestion regarding the railroads reflected the
importance that the owners of the 19th century railroad companies had in fanning the flames of interest
in the western landscape—for example, the Northern Pacific Railroad Company subsidized landscape
painter Thomas Moran’s trip to the Yellowstone region (Figure 8)—and in successfully lobbying for
the establishment of Yellowstone National Park [57].
Whether existing parklands can be preserved unimpaired while roads and hotels are built, trees are
cut, or cattle are grazed continues to vex National Park management [8,26,57]. At the same time,
however, Lane wrote that:
“In studying new park projects, you should seek to find scenery of supreme and distinctive
quality or some national feature so extraordinary or unique as to be of national interest
and importance. You should seek distinguished examples of typical forms of world
architecture; such, for instance, as the Grand Canyon, as exemplifying the highest
accomplishment of stream erosion, and the high, rugged portion of Mount Desert Island as
exemplifying the oldest rock forms in America and the luxuriance of deciduous forests” ([59];
emphasis added).
Land 2014, 3
271
In short, the importance of scenery—and scenery as landscape architecture to be enjoyed by
all—was, and remains, the raison d’être of identification, establishment, and management of U.S.
National Parks.
Figure 8. Grand Canyon of the Yellowstone (1872) by Thomas Moran. Oil on canvas,
213.4 × 365.8 cm; Smithsonian American Art Museum, Washington, DC; Lent by the
Department of the Interior Museum L.1968.84.1.
3.2. Landscape Protection in China
The People’s Republic of China has three main types of protected areas: forest parks, nature
reserves, and scenic areas. In the last decade, through collaboration with The Nature Conservancy,
China has designated at least two pilot national parks [56], but as yet these have little resonance with
or meaning to the general public as a “conservation area” in China [60]. Nature reserves (自然保护区)
are areas protected for wildlife, flora, or landscape features of special interest. Forest parks (林公园)
are areas specifically aimed at protecting forests and forest resources. Scenic areas (景区) are protected
for outstanding natural and scenic values, but they are not supposed to overlap with forest parks or
nature reserves [56]. Nature reserves, forest parks, and scenic areas all are open to tourism. Scenic
areas are the most frequently visited by Chinese tourists but provide less protection of “natural”
landscapes than do nature reserves; the nascent National Parks are meant to provide an intermediate
level of protection and visitation, and at the same time demonstrate that they can raise revenue by
attracting international tourists who are more familiar with the idea of a “national park” [56].
China has fewer scenic areas than either nature reserves or forest parks, which suggests that they are
both more difficult to site (national scenic areas must be at least 50 km2 in size) and more highly
prized. But at the national level, all three types of protected areas must have high scenic value. Among
the current inventory of protected areas, the Dinghushan Nature Reserve was the first established (see
below). But scenic areas have long been appreciated and, in some instances, protected well before the
Land 2014, 3
272
establishment in 1949 of the the People’s Republic of China. For example, Huangshan has appeared in
poetry and landscape painting for over 1000 years (Figure 9) [61]; is one of the key inspirations for the
Shanshui (山水 mountain-water) school of landscape painting; and was first protected in the 12th
century [38].
Figure 9. Huangshan (ca. 1670) by Shi Tao (image in the public domain) [61].
Its dozens of temples (Figure 9), unique flora and fauna, and magnificent scenery provided
three criteria for Huangshan’s listing as a World Heritage site [62]. UNESCO reported that Huangshan
had nearly 3 million visitors in the 1990s, and expected that number to increase at ~10% per year; by
2007 that number had increased to ca. 15 million visitors [63]; classical scenery is clearly
a major attraction.
Landscapes protected for both their historical and aesthetic values are referred to as 风 水 林
(Fengshui lin; literally “Wind-water forests”. Fengshui (“wind-water”) refers to the system of
geomancy that harmonizes humans with their surrounding environments. It is widely used in Chinese
landscape architecture to design homes, commercial structures, palaces, and tombs, among many other
built environments [64]); Dinghushan is an outstanding example. Now widely recognized for its
centuries-old forest and biological diversity [65], Dinghushan also is the site of two important
Buddhist temples, the Tang Dynasty-era (618–907 CE) Baiyun Temple ( 白 云 寺 ) and the Ming
Dynasty-era (1368–1644 CE) Qingyun Temple (庆云寺). Buddhist temples in southern China often
protected the forests surrounding them [35], and the combination of these temples surrounded by
relatively undisturbed (sub)tropical forests, dramatic mountains, waterfalls, and lakes led both to its
protection as a national reserve and as one of the first designated (in 1979) UNESCO Biosphere
Reserves (and first Biosphere Reserve in China) [35,66].
Land 2014, 3
273
The core area of the Dinghushan reserve has the most undisturbed forest and is off-limits to visitors
other than scientific researchers. The majority of visitors to Dinghushan come for the scenery created
by the juxtaposition of the temples, forests, and mountain (Figures 10 and 11); an inscription at the
Qingyun complex states: (T)he temple on the renowned mountain/creates picturesque scenery [67]
(p. 226).
Figure 10. Dinghushan Tourist Information Kiosk (2013). Photograph © 2014 by Aaron M.
Ellison and used with permission.
Figure 11. Qingyun Temple at Dinghushan (2013). The temple gates frame the mountains
beyond. Photograph © 2014 by Aaron M. Ellison and used with permission.
Land 2014, 3
274
The close proximity of Dinghushan to the mega-city of Guangzhou (the tourist map (Figure 10)
claims it is the “nearest virgin forest from a city in the world”) ensures a steady stream of visitors.
UNESCO estimated 1 million people per year in 1997 [66], and that number has probably increased
at least 10-fold in the intervening years. As in the U.S. National Parks, the vast majority arrive on
motorized vehicles (Figure 12) [59], take bus-tours to scenic vistas (Figure 10), walk well-maintained
trails with interpretive signs that make visible the important aspects of nature [67], and buy food and
souvenirs from hundreds of vendors or at the well-appointed restaurant with dramatic views from
many of the tables within the Qingyun temple.
Figure 12. Near the entrance to Dinghushan (2013). Photograph © 2014 by Aaron M. Ellison
and used with permission.
4. Moving Forward: Landscape Aesthetics and Land Protection in the 21st Century
In the U.S., the aesthetic developed and elaborated by the 19th century Romantic Movement
painters of the Hudson River School remains popular among the general public [22], who also
continue in large numbers to enjoy the scenery of national parks. But in the 20th and 21st centuries,
landscape art in the U.S. and Western Europe moved on through Modernism and Post-Modernism,
and currently expresses a new stance that further identifies and portrays the destruction of nature by
people [22]. The U.S. National Park system was well established by the mid-20th century, by which
time the National Park Service also had embraced Modernism in its management and focused visitors’
attention on iconic scenery viewed in or from comfortable surroundings [26]. Behind the scenes,
however, park stewardship has evolved towards a fuller realization of Leopold’s land aesthetic [20],
epitomized by allowing “natural processes” such as fire to take their course (e.g., the Yellowstone Fire
of 1988 [68]). The tensions between scenic and ecological aesthetics in park management [8,20,69]
presents new opportunities for artists to re-imagine how people interact with nature and re-engage with
an increasingly urban populace rediscovering nature both within and outside of cities [22].
Land 2014, 3
275
In contemporary China, the aesthetic of landscape painting developed during the Tang, Song, and
Yuan Dynasties, between the 7th and 14th centuries CE, similarly inspires landscape conservation
practices. The existing reserve system in China and its nascent National Parks take advantage of
lessons learned from National Park systems in the U.S. and elsewhere as China develops parks
that simultaneously maintain ecological values that allow visitors to appreciate classical scenic vistas,
support ecosystem services (e.g., preservation of biodiversity, functioning wetlands [2]), and generate
revenue from tourism [56]. As in U.S. National Parks, contemporary visitors to China’s parks and
reserves focus primarily on the scenery and cultural heritage; the biodiversity and ecological research
in core areas is off-limits to the general public. And as in the West, contemporary Chinese artists
such as Xu Bing reflect and refine a traditional aesthetic as they interpret modern landscapes [70]
(Figure 13(left, center)). Hints of the Post-Modernist critique apparent in 21st century Western
landscape painting also emerge in Xu Bing’s work: his ironic interpretation of Shi Tao’s classic
painting Landscape Painted on the Double Ninth Festival is constructed of trash and debris
(Figure 13(center, right)). Similarly, the Chinese photographer Yao Lu creates classical (Song and Yuanera)-looking landscapes from photographs of landfills and polluted waterways [71], while the
American artist Paul Jacobsen juxtaposes mountains of trash with “real” mountains [22].
Burke found the sublime in nature, not in the built environment [1]; but see [38]. In the United
States in the 19th century, as in China centuries earlier, landscape painters communicated this concept
to a broader audience and defined an aesthetic whose influence defined the language of landscape
protection decades to centuries in the future. The Hudson River School painters in the U.S. and
philosopher/scholar painters of the Tang, Song, and Yuan Dynasties in China were widely respected,
and the messages conveyed by their paintings were broadly understood and appreciated in village
homes, capitals and capitols, and palaces. There is now less interaction between artists and the general
public, however, and contemporary aesthetics appear to have little impact on decisions made about
land protection or broader conservation agendas [69]. Rather than creating and defining a new common
aesthetic, “(modern landscape) (p)aintings express the painter, whose style is idiosyncratic” [72]. At the
same time, new efforts to bring artists together with scientists and the general public are creating new
opportunities to influence the decisions being made to protect and conserve natural landscapes [73–75].
As these efforts bear fruit, we are likely to witness new opportunities for conservation and land
protection based on an aesthetic of a rapidly changing world [22].
Land 2014, 3
Figure 13. (Left) Landscape Painted on the Double Ninth Festival (Detail) (1705) by Shi Tao. Hanging scroll; ink and color on paper,
71.6 × 42.2 cm; Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1981.285.13. Image © The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Reproduction of any kind is
prohibited without express written permission in advance from The Metropolitan Museum of Art. (Center) Background Story 8 (Front) and
(Right) Background Story 8 (Rear); (2012) by Xu Bing. Trash and natural debris attached to frosted acrylic panel, 762 × 365.8 × 213.4 cm;
Exhibited at MassMoCA, 2012–2013; Photographs (center and right) by Aaron M. Ellison (as permitted by the MassMoCA) and used
with permission.
276
Land 2014, 3
277
Acknowledgments
This essay is part of the author’s ongoing project on “Ecology and the Challenge of Modernism”.
I especially thank Xiujun Wen (Associate Professor) and Xueying Zhuang (Vice-Dean) of the College
of Forestry, South China Agricultural University, for introducing me to the Dinghushan National
Nature Reserve, and its Vice-Director, Jiangming Mo, for helpful background information and
discussion about it. An evening of conversation in Guangzhou with Tianci Xie about contemporary
Chinese art helped to further crystallize some of the ideas presented herein. I also thank Calley Ordoyne,
Wenming Shi, Yuan Liu, and Bob and Stephanie Tansey for additional discussions about contemporary
conservation efforts in China and help with the nuances of the language and practice of the Chinese
land protection system. Grace Barber, Susan Scott, Bob Tansey, and three anonymous reviewers
provided helpful comments on, and a useful critique of early versions of the manuscript. Support for
this work has been provided by the Harvard Forest and its Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER)
program, U.S. National Science Foundation grant DEB 1237491.
Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Burke, E. A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful,
2nd ed.; R. and J. Dodsley: London, UK, 1757.
2. Costanza, R.; D’Arge, R.; de Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.;
Naeem, S.; O’Neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and
natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260.
3. Barton, G. Empire forestry and the origins of environmentalism. J. Hist. Geogr. 2001, 27, 529–552.
4. Gregg, S.M. Managing the Mountains: Land Use Planning, the New Deal, and the Creation of a
Federal Landscape in Appalachia; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2010.
5. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Operational
Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention; UNESCO: Paris,
France, 1996.
6. Mitchell, N.; Buggey, S. Protected landscapes and cultural landscapes: Taking advantage of
diverse approaches. George Wright Forum 2000, 17, 35–46.
7. 39 Stat. 535 (Code of Laws of the United States: 16 U.S.C. 1–4), 1916.
8. Keiter, R.B. To Conserve Unimpaired: The Evolution of the National Park Idea; Island Press:
Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
9. Bhagwat, S.A.; Rutte, C. Sacred groves: Potential for biodiversity management. Front. Ecol.
Environ. 2006, 4, 519–524.
10. Dudley, N.; Higgins-Zogib, L.; Mansourian, S. The links between protected areas, faiths and
sacred natural sites. Conserv. Biol. 2009, 23, 568–577.
Land 2014, 3
278
11. Roosevelt, T. At Grand Canyon, Arizona, May 6, 1903. In Presidential Addresses and State
Papers, February 19, 1902 to May 13, 1903; The Review of Reviews Company: New York, NY,
USA, 1903; p. 370.
12. Downing, A.J. A Treatise on the Theory and Practice of Landscape Gardening, Adapted to North
America; With a View to the Improvement of Country Residences; Wiley and Putnam:
New York, NY, USA, 1841.
13. Wallace, B. The Hudson River by Daylight; Gaylord Watson: New York, NY, USA, 1873.
14. Williams, R. The Country and the City; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1973.
15. Falk, J.H.; Balling, J.D. Evolutionary influence on human landscape preference. Environ. Behav.
2009, 42, 479–493.
16. Lohr, V.I.; Pearson-Mims, C.H. Responses to scenes with spreading, rounded, and conical tree
forms. Environ. Behav. 2006, 38, 667–688.
17. Orians, G.H.; Heerwagen, J.H. Evolved responses to landscape. In The Adapted Mind:
Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture; Barkow, J.H., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J.,
Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1992; pp. 555–580.
18. Han, K.-T. Responses to six major terrestrial biomes in terms of scenic beauty, preference, and
restorativeness. Environ. Behav. 2007, 39, 529–556.
19. Nash, R. Wilderness and the American Mind; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 1967.
20. Callicott, J.B. Leopold’s land aesthetic. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1983, 38, 329–332.
21. Ferber, L.S. The Hudson Rivers School: Nature and the American Vision; Skira Rizzoli
International Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
22. Ellison, A.M. The suffocating embrace of landscape and the picturesque conditioning of ecology.
Landsc. J. 2013, 32, 79–94.
23. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Guidelines
and Criteria for National Geoparks Seeking UNESCO’s Assistance to Join the Global Geoparks
Network (GGN). Available online: http://www.globalgeopark.org/UploadFiles/2012_9_6/
GGN2010.pdf (accessed on 5 December 2013).
24. Grove, N. Earth’s Last Great Places: Exploring the Nature Conservancy Worldwide; National
Geographic Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
25. Karieva, P. What Ever Happened to the Last Great Places? Conservation Gateway: Science
Chronicles 23 May 2011. Available online: http://www.conservationgateway.org/News/Pages/
what-ever-happened-last-g.aspx (accessed on 5 December 2013).
26. Carr, E. Mission 66: Modernism and the National Park Dilemma; University of Massachusetts
Press: Amherst, MA, USA, 2007.
27. Callicott, J.B.; Crowder, L.B.; Mumford, K. Current normative concepts in conservation.
Conserv. Biol. 1999, 13, 22–35.
28. Jordan, W.R., III; Lubick, G.M. Making Nature Whole: A History of Ecological Restoration;
Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
29. Daoism and Ecology: Ways within a Cosmic Landscape; Giradot, N.J., Miller, J., Liu, X., Eds.;
Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2001.
30. Polinska, W. Ecology and art: East Asian traditions meet West. East-West Connect. 2006, 6,
99–122.
Land 2014, 3
279
31. Scott, S.C. Sacred Earth: Daoism as a preserver of environment in Chinese landscape painting
from the Song through the Qing dynasties. East-West Connect. 2006, 6, 72–98.
32. Ames, R.T. Taoism and the nature of nature. Environ. Ethics 1986, 8, 317–350.
33. Elvin, M. The Retreat of the Elephants; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2004.
34. Johnson, I. In the air. The New Yorker, 2 December 2013, Volume 89, pp. 32–37.
35. Marks, R.B. China: Its Environmental History; Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, MD, USA, 2012.
36. Elvin, M. Concepts of nature: China and Europe in comparative perspective. New Left Review,
July–August 2010, Volume 64, pp. 65–82.
37. Lee, S.E. Chinese Landscape Painting, Revised ed.; Icon Editions, Harper & Row: New York,
NY, USA, 1977.
38. Steinitz, C. Landscape planning: A brief history of influential ideas. J. Landsc. Archit. 2008, 5,
68–74.
39. Cronon, W. The trouble with wilderness; Or getting back to the wrong nature. In Uncommon
Ground: Towards Reinventing Nature; Cronon, W., Ed.; W.W. Norton and Co.: New York, NY,
USA, 1995; pp. 69–90.
40. Booth, K. In wilderness and wildness: Recognizing and responding within the agency of relational
memory. Environ. Ethics 2001, 33, 283–293.
41. Garg, A. Typology of sacred groves and their discrimination from sacred sites. Curr. Sci. 2013,
104, 596–599.
42. Bedell, R. The Anatomy of Nature: Geology and American Landscape Painting, 1825–1875;
Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2001.
43. Harrison, C. Abstract art: Reading Barnett Newman’s Eve. In Frameworks for Modern Art;
Gager, J., Ed.; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2003; pp. 105–151.
44. Bonhommeau, S.; Cubroca, L.; le Pape, O.; Barde, J.; Kaplan, D.M.; Chassot, E.; Nieblas, A.-E.
Eating up the world’s food web and the human trophic level. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013,
110, 20617–20620.
45. Anonymous. Art: The Venus of Milo. Appleton’s J.: Mag. Gen. Lit. 1874, 11, 700.
46. Soper, A.C. Early Chinese landscape painting. Art Bull. 1941, 23, 141–164.
47. Fusek, L. The “Kao-t’ang fu”. Monum. Ser. 1972–1973, 30, 392–425.
48. File:Gu Kaizhi-Nymph of the Luo River (full), Palace Museum, Beijing.jpg. Available online:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gu_Kaizhi-Nymph_of_the_Luo_River_%28full%29,
Palace_Museum,_Beijing.jpg (accessed on 7 March 2014).
49. Yellowstone and the Great West: Journals, Letters, and Images from the 1871 Hayden Expedition;
Merrill, M.D., Ed.; University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln, NE, USA, 2003.
50. Roque, O.R. The Oxbow by Thomas Cole: Iconography of an American landscape painting.
Metrop. Mus. J. 1982, 17, 63–73.
51. Rarick, E. Desparate Passage: The Donner Party’s Perilous Journey West; Oxford University
Press: Oxford, UK, 2008.
52. Liu, Z. Liu Zongyuan Ji; Zhonghua Shuju: Taibei, Taiwan, 1978.
53. File:Ni Zan Water and Bamboo Dwelling.jpg. Available online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
File:Ni_Zan_Water_ and_Bamboo_Dwelling.jpg (accessed on 7 March 2014).
54. Siren, O. Shih-T’ao, painter, poet, and theoretician. Bull. Mus. Far East. Antiq. 1949, 21, 31–62.
Land 2014, 3
280
55. Naturalist’s Guide to the Americas; Shelford, V.E., Ed.; The Williams & Wilkins Company:
Baltimore, MD, USA, 1926.
56. Kram, M.; Bedford, C.; Durnin, M.; Luo, Y.; Rokpelnis, K.; Roth, B.; Smith, N.; Wang, Y.;
Yu, G.; Yu, Q.; et al. Protecting China’s Biodiversity: A Guide to Land Use, Land Tenure & Land
Protection Tools; The Nature Conservancy: Arlington, TX, USA, 2012.
57. Sellars, R.W. Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A History with a New Preface and
Epilogue; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2009.
58. Olmstead, F.L. The Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Big tree grove: A preliminary report
(August 9, 1865). In America’s National Park System: The Critical Documents; Dilsaver, L.M.,
Ed.; Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, MD, USA, 1994; pp. 12–27.
59. Lane, F.K. Secretary Lane’s letter on national park service management (May 13, 1918). In
America’s National Park System: The Critical Documents; Dilsaver, L.M., Ed.;
Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, MD, USA, 1994; pp. 48–52.
60. Ordoyne, C.; Liu, Y.Y.; Shi, W. (United States Department of State, Beijing, China). Personal
communication, 20 November 2013.
61. File:Shitao02.jpg. Available online: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shitao02.jpg
(accessed on 7 March 2014).
62. UNESCO World Heritage List: Mount Huangshan. Available online: http://whc.unesco.org/en/
list/547/ (accessed on 20 December 2013).
63. Huangshan. Available online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huangshan (accessed on
20 December 2013).
64. Chen, B.X.; Nakama, Y. A summary of research history on Chinese Feng-shui and application of
Feng-shui principles to environmental issues. Kyusyu J. For. Res. 2004, 57, 297–301.
65. Kong, G.H.; Dallmeier, F.; Comiskey, J.A.; Huang, Z.L.; Wei, P.; Mo, J.M.; He, D.Q.;
Zhang, Q.M.; Wang, Y.J. Structure, composition, and dynamics of an evergreen broadleaf Forest
in Dinghushan Biosphere Reserve, China. In Forest Biodiversity Research, Monitoring and
Modeling: Conceptual Background and Old World Case Studies; Dallmeier, F., Comiskey, J.A.,
Eds.; Parthenon Publishing Group Ltd.: Lancaster, UK, 1998; pp. 533–549.
66. UNESCO—MAB Biosphere Reserves Directory: Dinghushan. Available online:
http://www.unesco.org/mabdb/br/brdir/directory/biores.asp?mode=gen&code=CPR+02 (accessed
on 23 December 2013).
67. Staiff, R. Cultural inscriptions of Nature: Some implications for sustainability, nature-based
tourism, and national parks. In Tourism, Recreation, and Sustainability: Linking Culture and the
Environment, 2nd ed.; McCool, S.F., Moisey, R.N., Eds.; CABI Press: Oxfordshire, UK, 2008;
pp. 220–235.
68. Parsons, R.; Daniel, T.C. Good looking: In defense of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landsc. Urban
Plan. 2002, 60, 43–56.
69. Turner, M.G.; Romme, W.H.; Tinker, D.B. Surprises and lessons from the 1988 Yellowstone
fires. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2003, 1, 351–358.
70. Vainker, S.; Goldman, J.; McDonald, P.D.; Xu, B. Landscape/Landscript: Nature as Language in
the Art of Xu Bing; The Ashmolean Museum: Oxford, UK, 2013.
Land 2014, 3
281
71. FlorCruz, M. Chinese Landfills Made to Look Like Traditional Chinese Painting. International
Business Times, 5 March 2013. Available online: http://www.ibtimes.com/chinese-landfills
-made-look-traditional-chinese-painting-photos-1112664 (accessed on 17 February 2014).
72. Xie, T. (Guangzhou, China). Personal communication, 20 September 2013.
73. Carr, D. Moral values and the arts in environmental education: Towards and ethics of aesthetic
appreciation. J. Philos. Educ.2004, 38, 221–239.
74. Ecological Reflections. Available online: http://www.ecologicalreflections.com/ (accessed on
23 December 2013).
75. Human/Nature:
Artists
Respond
to
a
Changing
Planet.
Available
online:
http://www.artistsrespond.org/ (accessed on 23 December 2013).
© 2014 by the author; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).